A Ten-Year Retrospective

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the publication of Ecological Design. Our goal in writing the book was stated in the preface: “In order to successfully integrate ecology and design, we must mirror nature’s deep interconnections in our own epistemology of design.” We sought to understand the interface of living systems and human design by articulating five basic principles of ecological design, which emerged from a detailed mapping and synthesis of literally dozens of candidate principles.

One of the reasons for the continuing relevance of Ecological Design is that these principles remain critical to creating a more sustainable future, and the epistemology that underlies these principles is rich enough to support a vast range of design innovation across many different fields. The approaches we explore in this book have become widely embraced over the last ten years, which is heartening, but the challenges have multiplied much more quickly.

The first principle, “Solutions Grow from Place,” states that solutions grow from the unique cultural and physical characteristics of place, which are so often ignored by standardized designs. The presentday globalized, highly mobile economy works against knowledge of and protection of place. All over the world, local groups are fighting to protect their cultural and natural heritage. The ecological, material, and human character of place is always the context of design even as the mechanical world is busy creating what James Howard Kunstler calls the “geography of nowhere.”

“Ecological Accounting” is becoming a major force in architecture and construction through the remarkably successful voluntary rating system developed by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) called Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED™). This system explicitly allows environmental and social

3

4 A Ten-Year Retrospective

factors, including site, water, energy, materials, and indoor air quality, to be weighed side by side with financial metrics in the design process. The growth of the USGBC is a testament to the exploding interest in ecological approaches to building design. USGBC membership has grown tenfold since 2000, and now includes over 6,300 companies and organizations. There are LEED-certified projects in all fifty states and twelve countries.

“Design with Nature” has found multiple expressions in the last ten years, ranging from Janine Benyus’s groundbreaking book Biomim icry: Innovation Inspired by Nature and biomimicry database (http:// database.biomimicry.org) to Robert Frenay’s Pulse: The Coming Age of Systems and Machines Inspired by Living Things. Living systems have become an extremely popular metaphor, model, and measure for the built environment, technologies, and even social institutions. Despite this, entrenched practices in design and engineering continue to keep people from seeing and applying the obvious, such as designing building orientation and shape to reflect the movement of the sun.

“Everyone Is a Designer” is increasingly being applied by a new breed of designers who place collaboration with all the stakeholders at the center of their design process. It also captures the underlying impulse of the open source movement, which allows an entire community of users to collectively design software, coauthor a document (“wiki”), or design a product.

Many open source ecological design initiatives are underway. Architecture for Humanity cofounder Cameron Sinclair recently announced his intention to “create a community that actively embraces open source design to generate innovative and sustainable living standards for all” (http://architectureforhumanity.org). The Worldchanging Web site (www.worldchanging.com) provides an international forum for sustainability innovations with the intention of fostering their rapid replication. Thinkcycle (www.thinkcycle.org) provides an open source platform for sustainable design innovation for marginalized communities worldwide.

A Ten-Year Retrospective 5

Finally, “Making Nature Visible,” which is linked to the concept of biophilia developed by E. O. Wilson and Steven Kellert, is beginning to be taken seriously by building operators and architects. Each building and site becomes a pedagogical opportunity for the exploration of water, energy, food, materials, waste, and biodiversity. In an increasingly urbanized world, it is critical to make natural systems and processes visible and accessible for both children and adults. Buildings like Oberlin College’s Adam Joseph Lewis Center and parks like Betsy Damon’s Living Water Garden in Chengdu, China offer multiple levels of interaction with both ecological processes and the resources that sustain us.

In retrospect, perhaps the most compelling theme of Ecological Design is the search for a unified approach to the design of sustainable systems that integrates scales ranging from the molecular to global. How can industrial design, architecture, city and regional planning, and infrastructure development be woven together with the capacities and needs of specific bioregions in the service of a world that works for all? How can we design in a way that responds to living systems that are continuously exchanging energy and materials and supporting selforganizing forms across a dizzying range of scales?

The last ten years have seen extraordinary theoretical and technical advances in the field of ecological design. Yet the challenges facing the planet have only accelerated, ranging from the loss of biodiversity to the rapidly increasing impacts of global climate change. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, conducted by more than a thousand leading scientists over several years, provides a recent authoritative and chilling overview of the declining condition of dozens of ecosystem services, including provision of fresh water, climate stability, soil health, and many others.1

There is a growing consensus that we have approximately one generation to make the transition from fossil fuels, ecological overshoot, and devastating social inequity to renewable energy, stable ecosystem services, and the ability to meet fundamental human needs. This will

6 A Ten-Year Retrospective

require unwavering political will; massive economic, social, and values transformation; and a huge reservoir of ecological design metrics, tools, case studies, and practitioners. Ecological Design was written with the hopeful premise that even as political and economic forces slowly aligned with sustainability, architects, landscape architects, planners, product designers, chemical engineers, and those in kindred disciplines could develop comprehensive, integrated, and culturally sensitive design frameworks.

At the bioregional scale, the Conservation Economy framework (www.conservationeconomy.net) was developed in 2002 by the innovative Portland-based nonprofit Ecotrust under Stuart’s direction. This research initiative was designed to capture the deep structure—the recurring economic, social, and ecological patterns—of a sustainable bioregion at scales ranging from individual buildings to vast wildlands corridors. The resulting “pattern language” is documented in a nonproprietary, transparent way on a dedicated Web site using a wide range of explanatory essays, case studies, images, references, and internal links.2 The goal was to create an open source platform for rapid international diffusion, critique, and archiving of best practices around ecological design and the social and economic factors that support it.

While the Conservation Economy framework was generated specifically for the coastal temperate rainforest of North America stretching from Big Sur, California to Kodiak Island, Alaska, it has turned out to have broad resonance in a wide range of other bioregions. It would appear that bioregions all over the world share a common challenge: how to grow a postextractive economy that honors culture and place, restores landscapes and stabilizes ecosystem services, enhances social equity, and provides diverse and stable livelihoods. The Conservation Economy framework demonstrates that the principles of ecological design, applied systematically from the smallest to largest scales and supported by appropriate social institutions, can allow a resilient, enduring, and prosperous adaptation to place.

A Ten-Year Retrospective 7

FIGURE 1. The Conservation Economy: a bioregional pattern language for the coastal temperate rain forest bioregion of North America.

During the last few years, our close colleague Christopher Alexander, an architect and mathematician who originated the pattern language approach, has published an extraordinary four-volume series called The Nature of Order. These books “hold out the magnificent prospect that there are processes that ordinary people can use, in small groups or vast collaborations, to create living structure, whether at the scale of a single hand-painted tile, a city or a continent. These processes use precisely the same kinds of transformation spontaneously employed by breaking waves, developing frog embryos, spiral galaxies, or nonlinear chemical reactions.”3 Ecological Design began to apply concepts from the new science of complex systems, including fractal geometry and self-organization, to the design process. It will take many more

8 A Ten-Year Retrospective

decades to fully effect this proposed integration. The Nature of Order provides a kindred path to connecting science and design through wholeness and “living structure.”

In the chapter on “Design with Nature,” we reported on early efforts to undertake large-scale land-use planning that systematically conserves biodiversity. In the last ten years, landscape ecology, landscape architecture, regional planning, and conservation have shown a promising convergence toward a spatial vocabulary—patch, edge, core, buffer, corridor, matrix—and supporting design principles that protect biodiversity at all levels of scale. Shortly after Ecological Design appeared in 1996, Wenche E. Dramstad, James D. Olson, and Richard T. T. Forman published Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning, a highly practical reference for ecological approaches to regional planning. In 2002, Robert G. Bailey, who originated the widely used ecoregional classification system during his tenure with the Forest Service, wrote a visionary book called EcoregionBased Design for Sustainability that systematically applied ecological design at the ecoregional scale. Bailey echoed one of our key themes, “Characteristically, conventional design tends to work at one scale at a time. Ecological design integrates design across multiples levels of scale, reflecting the influence of larger scales on smaller scales and smaller on larger.”4

The Nature Conservancy is now undertaking ecoregional planning in its efforts to protect representative samples of key ecosystem types and ensure habitat connectivity. Over the last ten years, the nonprofit Wildlands Project has assisted dozens of ecoregional efforts to create effective and linked conservation reserve systems, and now promotes efforts to reconnect habitat at the continental scale, including an effort to create vast linkages along the Rocky Mountains from Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y). The Y2Y initiative “is a vision of hope—of a place on the planet that will persevere in its full high-mountain richness forever, while continuing to provide a wonderful place for people to live, work

A Ten-Year Retrospective 9

and raise our families. Y2Y works relentlessly to strengthen relationships between conservationists, industry and business leaders, government agencies and educational institutions with the view of working towards achieving a balanced approach to preserving our unique continental treasure.”5

In a very different bioregional planning context, the Goa 2100 project provides an extraordinary long-term strategy integrating land-use planning, water, energy, economic development, and poverty alleviation for a global biodiversity hotspot located on India’s western coast. Prepared in response to an international competition for sustainable urban regions, the project proposes a “dynamic fractal morphology” including a cellular structure of nuclei, cores, spines, and skins; hierarchical networks adapting to topography; algorithmically determined densities that optimize human and resource security; and contiguity and linkage with ambient biodiversity corridors.6 The project also includes a detailed and economically viable transition to renewable energy systems, zero-waste manufacturing strategies, and ecological restoration. The project team has since been invited to work at the state and national scale in India to extend these strategies.

At the urban scale, the World Wildlife Fund and London-based Bio Regional Development Group are currently launching the One Planet Living initiative, which promotes dense communities that allow residents to decrease their ecological footprint (land area required to sustainably provide for consumption) from over twenty acres in the United States and twelve acres in Europe to the globally available average of four acres per capita. Such “One Planet Living Communities” utilize ten guiding principles: zero carbon (no fossil fuel emissions), zero waste, sustainable transport, local and sustainable materials, local and sustainable food, sustainable water, natural habitats and wildlife, culture and heritage, equity and fair trade, and health and happiness.7 The flagship project is Beddington Zero Energy Development, completed in 2003, which features ninety-nine homes arranged in three-story, superglazed

10 A Ten-Year Retrospective

FIGURE 2. An innovative sustainable urban plan for the Goa region of India

blocks on a four-acre former wastewater treatment plant in a London suburb. BedZED is powered exclusively by solar energy and biomass, treats all wastewater on site with a living machine, and offers a range of lifestyle amenities allowing residents to gracefully reach the global four acre per capita footprint, demonstrating that everyone on the planet could live in BedZED fashion.8 At a larger scale, Ken Yeang has demonstrated the feasibility of skyscrapers that generate energy, purify water, and provide three-dimensional ecological connectivity. He provides a masterful overview of this work in his new book Ecodesign: A Manual for Ecological Design.

During the last ten years, product design and industrial design have embraced the concept of cradle-to-cradle design. As William McDonough and Michael Braungart demonstrate in their landmark 2002 book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, it is possible to design products that contain only “biological nutrients” that can reenter ecosystems without harm and “technical nutrients” that can be

A Ten-Year Retrospective 11

FIGURE 3. Beddington Zero Energy Development, a four-acre ecological infill project in London, U.K.

reclaimed and recirculate inside closed-loop industrial cycles. The “Ecological Accounting” chapter discusses an earlier version of this approach, the “Intelligent Products System,” which has moved from abstract proposal to mainstream practice within some of the world’s largest manufacturing companies in a remarkably short time thanks to exceptional leadership from McDonough and Braungart.

These recent examples from the fields of bioregional planning, urban design, and product design show that sustainability stands at a tipping point of historic dimensions. The design DNA for sustainability is becoming ubiquitous and mutating in response to local need. The scientific foundations for sustainability are rigorous. Policy support at the local, regional, national, and international levels continues to grow. Despite this trend, tens of trillions of dollars of capital remains locked in investments that do not offer sufficient social and environmental returns. This trapped capital greatly limits the possibility of ecological

12 A Ten-Year Retrospective

design approaches reaching sufficient scale within the brief transitional generation remaining to us.

As the chapter “Ecological Accounting Informs Design” argues, prices do not reflect true social and ecological costs, creating a “sustainability gap” (price differential) for ecological design innovations. However, during the last ten years green buildings, renewable energy, sustainable infrastructure systems, and many other areas have made significant progress toward cost neutrality even within the narrowest comparison criteria. Systems approaches that connect project costs and benefits across multiple space and time scales, disciplines, departments, and budgets can further demonstrate the economic viability of ecological design. For instance, based on comprehensive accounting, many municipalities have recently turned to watershed restoration as a cheaper form of flood control and water purification than engineering river channels and installing new treatment equipment.

When a sustainability gap remains, the solution is to recognize that sustainability is a new kind of value proposition, not a mission to be worn on one’s sleeve. According to the pathbreaking research of Jed Emerson,9 sustainability creates blended value (economic, social, environmental). Investors seeking social and environmental returns are drawn to the optimal blended value produced by sustainable enterprises and projects. It is possible to precisely document social and environmental returns—just as financial returns are rigorously analyzed—and provide them to investors seeking such returns. The result is a combination of market-rate and socially or environmentally responsible capital that solves the sustainability gap by replacing unsupportable levels of financial return with supportable blended financial, social, and environmental returns.

By optimizing and enhancing social returns (like living wage job creation) and environmental returns (like reduced greenhouse emissions), enterprises become eligible for lower cost, more flexible sources of capital. Such capital may be offered in a wide variety of forms, including loans with more favorable terms, equity investments, grants, bonds, and

A Ten-Year Retrospective 13

tax credits. Major sources of living capital include foundations and nonprofits (increasingly using their endowments to support their missions); pension funds; community development banks, credit unions and revolving loan funds; faith organizations; university endowments; local, state, and federal governments; venture capital funds; real estate investment trusts; and businesses. By connecting these vast pools of living capital with worthy sustainability projects, the current sustainability gap, which is probably between 5 and 15 percent on an economywide basis, can be completely closed in a matter of one generation.

The principles of “Design with Nature” and “Solutions Grow from Place” are closely related to linking the continuity of scales that exist between the living world and the designed world. Jared Diamond makes the case in his monumental book Collapse that past empires collapsed because their political, physical, and cosmological structures ignored the limitations imposed by nature’s linked scales. Many current structures in our modern financial, military, and industrial empire cannot be made truly sustainable because their very structure ignores “Design with Nature.” We can increase the material and energetic efficiency of such systems, but without a radical restructuring, they can never become sustainable. The most typical example is the living pattern we have been building over the last fifty years: single home suburbs linked by massive freeways to clusters of office and industrial parks and massive shopping malls. You can “green” the houses, you can give the commuters hybrid fuel-efficient cars, but you will never achieve sustainability because the basic structure cannot accommodate it.

This brings us to the larger question of recreating community. In David Korten’s compelling new book The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community, he cogently explains the problem: “If we were to apply living-system principles to organizing the relations of daily life within our modern context, we would create locally rooted, self orga nizing, compact communities that bring work, shopping and recreation nearer to our residences—thus saving energy and commuting time, reducing CO2 emissions and dependence on oil, and freeing time for

14 A Ten-Year Retrospective

family and community activities....With family life, work life, and community life more geographically proximate and people in more regular and natural contact, our lives would be less fragmented and more coherent, the bonds of community denser, stronger and more trusting....”10 This is a simple example of what scale linking of natural and designed systems could achieve toward creating places that are truly communities.

In the language of our third principle, “Design with Nature,” sustainability means connecting the flows and structures between the natural world and the built environment at every level of scale. It means transforming the mechanical into the organic, the layer of large grids into ecosystems. We may always have global economies, but they should serve merely to supplement economic activity occurring at the smallest viable scale (subsidiarity.) Michael Pollan, in his delightful book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, clarifies for us the difference between food produced organically and food that is produced sustainably. He shows that large-scale mono-cultural production with product being shipped around the world can never be sustainable as compared to the diversely cropped small farm he visits for a week.

In Ecological Design, we did not make the broader evolutionary and spiritual case for the nascent field of ecological design, and its larger purpose and effect. Sim’s latest book, Design for Life, presents that case, which includes this summary: “The heart of ecological design is not efficiency or sustainability. It is the embodiment of animating spirit, the soul of the living world embedded in each of us waiting to be reborn and expressed in what we create and design.”11 It is a retreat from the abyss of empire, a Great Turning back to something of human scale that respects life’s 4-billion-year evolutionary journey.

Sim dedicates this second edition to his grandchildren, who will be faced with new dangers and new opportunities: Damiano, Luna, Jacob, Joshua, and Patricia; and to his wife, Gale, who teaches every day the value of an open heart and mind.

A Ten-Year Retrospective 15

Stuart would like to dedicate this second edition to his wife Katy Langstaff, who has supported and nurtured so much of this work; and his five-year-old daughter Sophia, with gratitude for her wisdom and wild heart, and with hope that her world, and that of her children and grandchildren, will still be filled with wild places.

Sim Van der Ryn Inverness, California

Stuart Cowan Portland, Oregon September 2006

Notes

1. See Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human WellBeing: General Synthesis (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2005) and also comprehensive resources at www.maweb.org. 2. See www.conservationeconomy.net. This Web site was edited by Stuart Cowan and published by (Portland, Oregon: Ecotrust, 2002). For the work of Ecotrust, see www.ecotrust.org. 3. See Christopher Alexander, The Nature of Order (Berkeley, Calif.: The Center for Environmental Structure, 2003–04). The quote is from Stuart Cowan, “Evaluating Wholeness,” Resurgence 225 (July/August 2004):56. 4. Robert G. Bailey, Ecoregion-Based Design for Sustainability (New York: Springer, 2002), 24–25. 5. The Wildlands Project Web site, see www.twp.org. 6. See www.goa2100.org. 7. One Planet Living Web site, see www.oneplanetliving.org. 8. For BedZED see www.bioregional.com/programme_projects/ ecohous_prog/bedzed/bedzed_hpg.htm. 9. See www.blendedvalue.org. 10. David Korten, The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community (San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler Publishers, 2006), 295. 11. Sim Van der Ryn, Design for Life (Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith, Publisher, 2005), 127.

PART ONE

BRINGING DESIGN TO LIFE